Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 5
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Oooh, and everyone so actively claiming to be atheists.
What has atheism got to do with it?
Academies have been sects from the very beginning, i.e. from the original Pythagorean academy, and continue to be so. "Truth" authority, depending on the "scholarly" degree, prevails over the authority of truth.
The only thing that has changed over the centuries is that the academies in one way or another have ceased to be private shops and have joined the public troughs. With the rise of the bourgeoisie, official "science" has become a servant of business, since the raw data from experiments are considered trade secrets, and "scientific" publications can only be trusted. Not to mention the fact that an "academic" degree can now easily be bought, and sometimes it is even easier to bribe a ready-made one in order to obtain the "necessary" scientific results.
Well, what can you do, go on enjoying yourself if you like it so much. But just answer yourself honestly, I really don't know how it's possible - are you sure you're not stumbling into a wall of your own incomprehension... in the face of emptiness...
Well, keep inventing ways to win at ornate games. Whatever the child needs.
Dimitri, let's go over it again and try it with you.
Let's observe together. The author claims that
1. If x 2 > x 1, then bet on x 3 < x 2
2. If x 2 < x 1, then bet on x 3 > x 2
Assume that x1 and x2 are extremes on the price chart.
Try to argue or better just agree with the author's conclusions.
And to say that the Eiffel Tower does not and cannot exist just because you can't see it from your window is, to say the least, silly and "unscientific". )
It was actually a joke. But if you are so serious, there are so-called scientific methods.
Arithmetic (if Pythagoras is involved), wherever it came from, is a clear and specific science.
Dimitri, let's do it again and try it with you again.
Let's observe together. The author states that
1. If x 2 > x 1, then bet on x 3 < x 2
2. If x 2 < x 1, then bet on x 3 > x 2
Assume that x1 and x2 are extremes on the price chart.
Try to argue or better just agree with the author's conclusions.
And to say that the Eiffel Tower does not and cannot exist just because you can't see or touch it from your window is, at the very least, silly and "unscientific". )
charter:
And to claim that the Eiffel Tower does not and cannot exist just because you can't see or feel it from your window is, to say the least, silly and "unscientific". )
It's much simpler here, because not only do they not see the tower itself, they don't even want to look at it. And if you stick their faces into the tower, they will still say that they don't see anything of the kind.
You'll be in the company of proud scholarly donkeys,
Try to be a donkey without words,
For any man who's not a donkey, these fools
They immediately accuse you of subversion.
Rubai © Omar Khayyam
What's the problem? We've recently opened a casino in Russia's Primorsky Krai, so let Yuri go there and shoehorn it in. Any other questions or doubts?
You fail to answer, I have no further questions for you.
It is useless to argue with sectarians as their faith is unshakable.
You don't manage to answer, I have no more questions for you.
I have a different opinion - you do not know what understanding is, you even stated the essence of the problem confusingly and poorly understood.